|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 23, 2021 11:12:21 GMT
This discussion of cosmology and QM has summoned me from my slumber. Pardon if these issues have already been addressed, but I'll take a crack at it. See the part where I said there are limitations. Doesn't mean he was wrong, but there are frames of reference where his laws are not reliable, especially the 1st law. Are you really trying to compare a rock to matter at a sub-atomic level? Or at relativistic speeds? Do better. But I don't have to do better. If I drop a feather and it floats away, I wouldn't conclude that the feather defied gravity. So when you "see" quantum particles where there weren't any a nanosecond before, why should the conclusion be even a remote possibility that it merely popped itself into existence from literally nothing at all with no cause? Causality is temporal by its very nature. A has to come before B before we can say A caused B. For there to be a before, time has to exist. Time itself is relative; specifically it's a relationship between gravity, space, and mass (more specifically, all mass has gravity that warps space: this warping is what creates the relationship we call "time"). Here's the problem: we don't understand how gravity functions on the quantum level, and however the universe got started it was almost certainly some kind of quantum event. So when we talk about what "caused" the universe we have to understand that our notion of causality, the kind that functions with mass, space, gravity, and time, does not exist (at least not in the same way) on the quantum level. This doesn't mean that there can't be some kind of "first cause," so to speak, but we really need to radically change what we mean when we're talking about causality and the universe's origins. If you're seriously interested in researching naturalistic cosmological origins there are probably dozens of competing models out there. A good starting point might be Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, which, despite the quibbling over the "nothing" of the title, is a good introduction to the most current, plausible, naturalistic, cosmological models. Even Wikipedia would be a good place to get started. It's true we currently don't know which is the correct model, but all of them are innately more probable (given that they're extrapolating from things that we already know) than anything supernatural--which isn't a model and doesn't actually explain anything anyway. It only seems to explain things because it's anthropomorphically intuitive and satisfying, but that's not the same as a genuine explanation. Apologies for the delayed reply, my job still requires my physical presence to get done. Here's an article from Fermilab Today concerning "quantum foam" that might help answer your second question.
Meanwhile, I can only reiterate, Newton's first law is not applicable at the quantum level, no matter how many analogies you can come up with. Any decent modern physics text will tell you this, I'm sure.
When a physics text tells me things can be in two different locations simultaneously or that matter can just spontaneously materialize from literally nothing at all or that the cat is indeed both dead and alive, I'm not very quick to label it "decent." So... you're basically saying that quantum mechanics doesn't exist, or is wrong, or what? I'm not sure what your position is by reading this. Quantum physics is as well tested a theory as we have, just as much as General Relativity, evolution, or germ-theory. Hell, you can perform the double-slit experiment at home if you're so inclined. The superpositioning of particles ("things being in two different locations") is what's shown in that experiment. The light particles interfere with themselves going through the slits, which is why you see the wave pattern. That couldn't happen if they were in a definite location, as then you'd only see two bands of light rather than a wave. That's what we do see when we try to measure/observe them beforehand. As for matter "spontaneously materializ(ing) from literally nothing," the closest we get to that are virtual particles in a vacuum. That might not be technically nothing, but it's as close as we can get. As for Shrodinger's Cat, yes, it was intended to show the absurdity of QM on a macro level. The problem is that after 100 years of trying to find a way to overcome that absurdity science has spectacularly failed to do so, and the cat is pretty easily explained by applying the same laws of QM to the observer as to the cat. The other ways of overcoming the absurdity just add more absurdities that are even harder to overcome. One point RE a different post: I think saying any potential first cause would share "many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God"" would really depend on what the first cause is. Let's assume the universe began as a quantum fluctuation that sustained itself long enough for a singularity and inflation to happen, creating our universe. I don't think many people would see a random sea of fluctuation energy, a quantum field, has many of the same qualities that most would associate with God.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2021 22:02:14 GMT
This discussion of cosmology and QM has summoned me from my slumber. Pardon if these issues have already been addressed, but I'll take a crack at it. But I don't have to do better. If I drop a feather and it floats away, I wouldn't conclude that the feather defied gravity. So when you "see" quantum particles where there weren't any a nanosecond before, why should the conclusion be even a remote possibility that it merely popped itself into existence from literally nothing at all with no cause? Causality is temporal by its very nature. A has to come before B before we can say A caused B. For there to be a before, time has to exist. Time itself is relative; specifically it's a relationship between gravity, space, and mass (more specifically, all mass has gravity that warps space: this warping is what creates the relationship we call "time"). Here's the problem: we don't understand how gravity functions on the quantum level, and however the universe got started it was almost certainly some kind of quantum event. So when we talk about what "caused" the universe we have to understand that our notion of causality, the kind that functions with mass, space, gravity, and time, does not exist (at least not in the same way) on the quantum level. This doesn't mean that there can't be some kind of "first cause," so to speak, but we really need to radically change what we mean when we're talking about causality and the universe's origins. If you're seriously interested in researching naturalistic cosmological origins there are probably dozens of competing models out there. A good starting point might be Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, which, despite the quibbling over the "nothing" of the title, is a good introduction to the most current, plausible, naturalistic, cosmological models. Even Wikipedia would be a good place to get started. It's true we currently don't know which is the correct model, but all of them are innately more probable (given that they're extrapolating from things that we already know) than anything supernatural--which isn't a model and doesn't actually explain anything anyway. It only seems to explain things because it's anthropomorphically intuitive and satisfying, but that's not the same as a genuine explanation. When a physics text tells me things can be in two different locations simultaneously or that matter can just spontaneously materialize from literally nothing at all or that the cat is indeed both dead and alive, I'm not very quick to label it "decent." So... you're basically saying that quantum mechanics doesn't exist, or is wrong, or what? I'm not sure what your position is by reading this. Quantum physics is as well tested a theory as we have, just as much as General Relativity, evolution, or germ-theory. Hell, you can perform the double-slit experiment at home if you're so inclined. The superpositioning of particles ("things being in two different locations") is what's shown in that experiment. The light particles interfere with themselves going through the slits, which is why you see the wave pattern. That couldn't happen if they were in a definite location, as then you'd only see two bands of light rather than a wave. That's what we do see when we try to measure/observe them beforehand. As for matter "spontaneously materializ(ing) from literally nothing," the closest we get to that are virtual particles in a vacuum. That might not be technically nothing, but it's as close as we can get. As for Shrodinger's Cat, yes, it was intended to show the absurdity of QM on a macro level. The problem is that after 100 years of trying to find a way to overcome that absurdity science has spectacularly failed to do so, and the cat is pretty easily explained by applying the same laws of QM to the observer as to the cat. The other ways of overcoming the absurdity just add more absurdities that are even harder to overcome. One point RE a different post: I think saying any potential first cause would share "many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God"" would really depend on what the first cause is. Let's assume the universe began as a quantum fluctuation that sustained itself long enough for a singularity and inflation to happen, creating our universe. I don't think many people would see a random sea of fluctuation energy, a quantum field, has many of the same qualities that most would associate with God. We live in a causal universe. If you're suggesting there may have been a (for lack of a better word) time in which causality was somehow "radically different" or even non-existent, you are stepping outside the realm of science. You may as well postulate unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and what the hell, God too. With that said, wasn't it Krauss who said, "If anything is possible, it isn't serious science"?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 25, 2021 7:37:01 GMT
This discussion of cosmology and QM has summoned me from my slumber. Pardon if these issues have already been addressed, but I'll take a crack at it. Causality is temporal by its very nature. A has to come before B before we can say A caused B. For there to be a before, time has to exist. Time itself is relative; specifically it's a relationship between gravity, space, and mass (more specifically, all mass has gravity that warps space: this warping is what creates the relationship we call "time"). Here's the problem: we don't understand how gravity functions on the quantum level, and however the universe got started it was almost certainly some kind of quantum event. So when we talk about what "caused" the universe we have to understand that our notion of causality, the kind that functions with mass, space, gravity, and time, does not exist (at least not in the same way) on the quantum level. This doesn't mean that there can't be some kind of "first cause," so to speak, but we really need to radically change what we mean when we're talking about causality and the universe's origins. If you're seriously interested in researching naturalistic cosmological origins there are probably dozens of competing models out there. A good starting point might be Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, which, despite the quibbling over the "nothing" of the title, is a good introduction to the most current, plausible, naturalistic, cosmological models. Even Wikipedia would be a good place to get started. It's true we currently don't know which is the correct model, but all of them are innately more probable (given that they're extrapolating from things that we already know) than anything supernatural--which isn't a model and doesn't actually explain anything anyway. It only seems to explain things because it's anthropomorphically intuitive and satisfying, but that's not the same as a genuine explanation. So... you're basically saying that quantum mechanics doesn't exist, or is wrong, or what? I'm not sure what your position is by reading this. Quantum physics is as well tested a theory as we have, just as much as General Relativity, evolution, or germ-theory. Hell, you can perform the double-slit experiment at home if you're so inclined. The superpositioning of particles ("things being in two different locations") is what's shown in that experiment. The light particles interfere with themselves going through the slits, which is why you see the wave pattern. That couldn't happen if they were in a definite location, as then you'd only see two bands of light rather than a wave. That's what we do see when we try to measure/observe them beforehand. As for matter "spontaneously materializ(ing) from literally nothing," the closest we get to that are virtual particles in a vacuum. That might not be technically nothing, but it's as close as we can get. As for Shrodinger's Cat, yes, it was intended to show the absurdity of QM on a macro level. The problem is that after 100 years of trying to find a way to overcome that absurdity science has spectacularly failed to do so, and the cat is pretty easily explained by applying the same laws of QM to the observer as to the cat. The other ways of overcoming the absurdity just add more absurdities that are even harder to overcome. One point RE a different post: I think saying any potential first cause would share "many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God"" would really depend on what the first cause is. Let's assume the universe began as a quantum fluctuation that sustained itself long enough for a singularity and inflation to happen, creating our universe. I don't think many people would see a random sea of fluctuation energy, a quantum field, has many of the same qualities that most would associate with God. We live in a causal universe. If you're suggesting there may have been a (for lack of a better word) time in which causality was somehow "radically different" or even non-existent, you are stepping outside the realm of science. You may as well postulate unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and what the hell, God too. With that said, wasn't it Krauss who said, "If anything is possible, it isn't serious science"? Yes, we live in a causal universe because all of the things in which we know causality by--mass, spacetime, gravity, etc.--exist. These are all very "macro-level" things, created by the organization and arrangement of countless particles. We know (it's not just speculation) that these things either don't exist or don't exist in remotely the same way on the quantum level. This isn't "stepping outside the realm of science," this is something science has known for most of a century. General Relativity breaks down on the quantum level: all the equations go to infinity. It's why the search for quantum gravity is still ongoing. Basically, you're just taking causality for granted without trying to understand what causality fundamentally is, and why the things that allow it to exist as we know it probably doesn't apply to cosmology where none of those things existed. Also, not all postulations, even random ones, are equally likely. That depends upon the complexity of the postulation (ala Kolmogorov) and how much is unknown and/or being assumed. Right now, the universe being caused by some kind of quantum event is the simplest explanation that's assuming the least. We know, eg, quantum fields exist, we know they can produce random fluctuations, and we have a good idea of how those fluctuations can (should inevitably) become a universe. We have no such knowledge when it comes to unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or gods. It's like saying that "aliens" and "burglars" are equally likely postulations if you come home and find your house ransacked.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 7:51:49 GMT
We live in a causal universe. If you're suggesting there may have been a (for lack of a better word) time in which causality was somehow "radically different" or even non-existent, you are stepping outside the realm of science. You may as well postulate unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and what the hell, God too. With that said, wasn't it Krauss who said, "If anything is possible, it isn't serious science"? Yes, we live in a causal universe because all of the things in which we know causality by--mass, spacetime, gravity, etc.--exist. These are all very "macro-level" things, created by the organization and arrangement of countless particles. We know (it's not just speculation) that these things either don't exist or don't exist in remotely the same way on the quantum level. This isn't "stepping outside the realm of science," this is something science has known for most of a century. General Relativity breaks down on the quantum level: all the equations go to infinity. It's why the search for quantum gravity is still ongoing. Basically, you're just taking causality for granted without trying to understand what causality fundamentally is, and why the things that allow it to exist as we know it probably doesn't apply to cosmology where none of those things existed. Also, not all postulations, even random ones, are equally likely. That depends upon the complexity of the postulation (ala Kolmogorov) and how much is unknown and/or being assumed. Right now, the universe being caused by some kind of quantum event is the simplest explanation that's assuming the least. We know, eg, quantum fields exist, we know they can produce random fluctuations, and we have a good idea of how those fluctuations can (should inevitably) become a universe. We have no such knowledge when it comes to unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or gods. It's like saying that "aliens" and "burglars" are equally likely postulations if you come home and find your house ransacked. Fair points, but putting the universe in motion is a different part of the argument. When you say there was something that became the universe, you're sidestepping the fact that the universe just existed in a different form. There certainly appears to be some pretty wacky stuff going on in the quantum world, though. I'll give you that. Headlines read: SCHROEDINGER'S CAT FOUND HALF-ALIVE! QUANTUM THEORY A MISTAKE!
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 25, 2021 9:20:00 GMT
Yes, we live in a causal universe because all of the things in which we know causality by--mass, spacetime, gravity, etc.--exist. These are all very "macro-level" things, created by the organization and arrangement of countless particles. We know (it's not just speculation) that these things either don't exist or don't exist in remotely the same way on the quantum level. This isn't "stepping outside the realm of science," this is something science has known for most of a century. General Relativity breaks down on the quantum level: all the equations go to infinity. It's why the search for quantum gravity is still ongoing. Basically, you're just taking causality for granted without trying to understand what causality fundamentally is, and why the things that allow it to exist as we know it probably doesn't apply to cosmology where none of those things existed. Also, not all postulations, even random ones, are equally likely. That depends upon the complexity of the postulation (ala Kolmogorov) and how much is unknown and/or being assumed. Right now, the universe being caused by some kind of quantum event is the simplest explanation that's assuming the least. We know, eg, quantum fields exist, we know they can produce random fluctuations, and we have a good idea of how those fluctuations can (should inevitably) become a universe. We have no such knowledge when it comes to unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or gods. It's like saying that "aliens" and "burglars" are equally likely postulations if you come home and find your house ransacked. Fair points, but putting the universe in motion is a different part of the argument. When you say there was something that became the universe, you're sidestepping the fact that the universe just existed in a different form. There certainly appears to be some pretty wacky stuff going on in the quantum world, though. I'll give you that. Headlines read: SCHROEDINGER'S CAT FOUND HALF-ALIVE! QUANTUM THEORY A MISTAKE! It's entirely possible that the universe has always existed in a different form, but that's kinda like saying that you and I have always existed in a different form: it's certainly true that all the particles that make us up existed in other forms since the beginning of the universe because no new matter was created to make us. I'm not sure if the same thing applies to the universe, whether or not the idea of the conservation of energy applies whatever fundamental stuff (like quantum fields) could've given rise to the universe, but it's certainly a possibility. One point about Shrodinger's Cat was that Shrodinger was really (more than anything) pointing out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation more so than QM in general. Einstein put it just as succinctly when he said "do you meant to tell me the moon doesn't exist if I'm not looking at it?" I still think QM makes sense if you just apply the same rules/laws to the observers so that everything is always in a state of superpositioning and we're just constantly decohering into the environment as we interact with it. Whatever the case, QM certainly isn't a mistake as it's the most precise theory we have for making physical predictions, even more precise than General Relativity.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 9:46:20 GMT
Fair points, but putting the universe in motion is a different part of the argument. When you say there was something that became the universe, you're sidestepping the fact that the universe just existed in a different form. There certainly appears to be some pretty wacky stuff going on in the quantum world, though. I'll give you that. Headlines read: SCHROEDINGER'S CAT FOUND HALF-ALIVE! QUANTUM THEORY A MISTAKE!It's entirely possible that the universe has always existed in a different form, but that's kinda like saying that you and I have always existed in a different form: it's certainly true that all the particles that make us up existed in other forms since the beginning of the universe because no new matter was created to make us. I'm not sure if the same thing applies to the universe, whether or not the idea of the conservation of energy applies whatever fundamental stuff (like quantum fields) could've given rise to the universe, but it's certainly a possibility. One point about Shrodinger's Cat was that Shrodinger was really (more than anything) pointing out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation more so than QM in general. Einstein put it just as succinctly when he said "do you meant to tell me the moon doesn't exist if I'm not looking at it?" I still think QM makes sense if you just apply the same rules/laws to the observers so that everything is always in a state of superpositioning and we're just constantly decohering into the environment as we interact with it. Whatever the case, QM certainly isn't a mistake as it's the most precise theory we have for making physical predictions, even more precise than General Relativity. The headline is a joke, Eva. I may have seen it on a bumper sticker or something. So the singularity theory has been scrapped? No more Big Bang? Or is it simultaneously all of the above and none of the above? After all, the cat isn't really a cat...
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 25, 2021 10:23:59 GMT
It's entirely possible that the universe has always existed in a different form, but that's kinda like saying that you and I have always existed in a different form: it's certainly true that all the particles that make us up existed in other forms since the beginning of the universe because no new matter was created to make us. I'm not sure if the same thing applies to the universe, whether or not the idea of the conservation of energy applies whatever fundamental stuff (like quantum fields) could've given rise to the universe, but it's certainly a possibility. One point about Shrodinger's Cat was that Shrodinger was really (more than anything) pointing out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation more so than QM in general. Einstein put it just as succinctly when he said "do you meant to tell me the moon doesn't exist if I'm not looking at it?" I still think QM makes sense if you just apply the same rules/laws to the observers so that everything is always in a state of superpositioning and we're just constantly decohering into the environment as we interact with it. Whatever the case, QM certainly isn't a mistake as it's the most precise theory we have for making physical predictions, even more precise than General Relativity. The headline is a joke, Eva. I may have seen it on a bumper sticker or something. So the singularity theory has been scrapped? No more Big Bang? Or is it simultaneously all of the above and none of the above? After all, the cat isn't really a cat... I know it was a joke, I just thought I should clarify that about Shrodinger's Cat since I didn't do so in my first post. No, the singularity and Big Bang are all still there: at this point we're talking about/speculating about what "caused" them. I still think it's fair to call the singularity the beginning of "our universe," since our universe implies something resembling that which has the properties (matter, laws, etc.) that our universe has.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 10:39:04 GMT
The headline is a joke, Eva. I may have seen it on a bumper sticker or something. So the singularity theory has been scrapped? No more Big Bang? Or is it simultaneously all of the above and none of the above? After all, the cat isn't really a cat... I know it was a joke, I just thought I should clarify that about Shrodinger's Cat since I didn't do so in my first post. No, the singularity and Big Bang are all still there: at this point we're talking about/speculating about what "caused" them. I still think it's fair to call the singularity the beginning of "our universe," since our universe implies something resembling that which has the properties (matter, laws, etc.) that our universe has. But the singularity is matter, and I thought we were talking/speculating about what caused it to exist in the first place, not about what caused it to change form.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 25, 2021 10:50:48 GMT
I know it was a joke, I just thought I should clarify that about Shrodinger's Cat since I didn't do so in my first post. No, the singularity and Big Bang are all still there: at this point we're talking about/speculating about what "caused" them. I still think it's fair to call the singularity the beginning of "our universe," since our universe implies something resembling that which has the properties (matter, laws, etc.) that our universe has. But the singularity is matter, and I thought we were talking/speculating about what caused it to exist in the first place, not about what caused it to change form. Right, the singularity is the matter that makes up our universe, which is why I'm saying it's fair to call that the beginning of our universe. Whatever was "before" that probably wasn't "our universe," in any meaningful sense. It's possible that the singularity itself was composed of pre-existing stuff, like the energy from quantum fields that, due to some fluctuation, arranged itself into what became the singularity, and then our universe as it expanded (The Big Bang). That's, of course, just speculation, but entirely possible given what's known about quantum field energy.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 11:33:10 GMT
But the singularity is matter, and I thought we were talking/speculating about what caused it to exist in the first place, not about what caused it to change form. Right, the singularity is the matter that makes up our universe, which is why I'm saying it's fair to call that the beginning of our universe. Whatever was "before" that probably wasn't "our universe," in any meaningful sense. It's possible that the singularity itself was composed of pre-existing stuff, like the energy from quantum fields that, due to some fluctuation, arranged itself into what became the singularity, and then our universe as it expanded (The Big Bang). That's, of course, just speculation, but entirely possible given what's known about quantum field energy. Pre-existing stuff as in stuff that existed before stuff? And do you suppose any stuff existed before the pre-existing stuff? It may not be meaningful in the sense of arrangement, but it's most definitely meaningful in the sense of origin.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 26, 2021 12:46:23 GMT
Right, the singularity is the matter that makes up our universe, which is why I'm saying it's fair to call that the beginning of our universe. Whatever was "before" that probably wasn't "our universe," in any meaningful sense. It's possible that the singularity itself was composed of pre-existing stuff, like the energy from quantum fields that, due to some fluctuation, arranged itself into what became the singularity, and then our universe as it expanded (The Big Bang). That's, of course, just speculation, but entirely possible given what's known about quantum field energy. Pre-existing stuff as in stuff that existed before stuff? And do you suppose any stuff existed before the pre-existing stuff? It may not be meaningful in the sense of arrangement, but it's most definitely meaningful in the sense of origin. "Pre-existing stuff" as in the energy of quantum fields. There's a big difference between roiling, randomly fluctuating fields of energy and the incredible density of matter that became the singularity and ended up expanding during the Big Bang to form our universe. It's also entirely possible this "pre-existing stuff" (the quantum field energy) would be timeless because there's no mass to create gravity and spacetime, so it wouldn't make sense to talk about "before" that. I'm still unsure if talking about "before time" even makes sense: can you have a "before" t=0? This reminds me strongly of THIS, which makes even my brain hurt. Sure, but like I said we can also say that "you" always existed because all the material that made you up existed before you were born. That's merely a quirk of language. It's the Ship of Theseus (kinda) in another form. I guess it might be useful to distinguish "our (local) universe" from "the universe" where the latter could include all of the stuff that existed "before" our universe and would eventually come to make up our universe... again, at least speculatively.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 27, 2021 23:13:52 GMT
Pre-existing stuff as in stuff that existed before stuff? And do you suppose any stuff existed before the pre-existing stuff? It may not be meaningful in the sense of arrangement, but it's most definitely meaningful in the sense of origin. "Pre-existing stuff" as in the energy of quantum fields. There's a big difference between roiling, randomly fluctuating fields of energy and the incredible density of matter that became the singularity and ended up expanding during the Big Bang to form our universe. It's also entirely possible this "pre-existing stuff" (the quantum field energy) would be timeless because there's no mass to create gravity and spacetime, so it wouldn't make sense to talk about "before" that. I'm still unsure if talking about "before time" even makes sense: can you have a "before" t=0? This reminds me strongly of THIS, which makes even my brain hurt. Sure, but like I said we can also say that "you" always existed because all the material that made you up existed before you were born. That's merely a quirk of language. It's the Ship of Theseus (kinda) in another form. I guess it might be useful to distinguish "our (local) universe" from "the universe" where the latter could include all of the stuff that existed "before" our universe and would eventually come to make up our universe... again, at least speculatively. I love when you guys talk about this 'stuff'! It always reminds me of my father's wheelbarrow. He bought a wheelbarrow when he was quite young to tend his first garden. As it ( and he) aged he replaced various parts, the wheel, the handles the bucket until at some point everything had been replaced, sometimes more than once yet he always perceived it as his original wheelbarrow.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 28, 2021 0:14:54 GMT
I love when you guys talk about this 'stuff'! It always reminds me of my father's wheelbarrow. He bought a wheelbarrow when he was quite young to tend his first garden. As it ( and he) aged he replaced various parts, the wheel, the handles the bucket until at some point everything had been replaced, sometimes more than once yet he always perceived it as his original wheelbarrow. Did he name his wheelbarrow Theseus by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 28, 2021 1:17:28 GMT
I love when you guys talk about this 'stuff'! It always reminds me of my father's wheelbarrow. He bought a wheelbarrow when he was quite young to tend his first garden. As it ( and he) aged he replaced various parts, the wheel, the handles the bucket until at some point everything had been replaced, sometimes more than once yet he always perceived it as his original wheelbarrow. Did he name his wheelbarrow Theseus by any chance? He named it Barry.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 28, 2021 9:36:18 GMT
"Pre-existing stuff" as in the energy of quantum fields. There's a big difference between roiling, randomly fluctuating fields of energy and the incredible density of matter that became the singularity and ended up expanding during the Big Bang to form our universe. It's also entirely possible this "pre-existing stuff" (the quantum field energy) would be timeless because there's no mass to create gravity and spacetime, so it wouldn't make sense to talk about "before" that. I'm still unsure if talking about "before time" even makes sense: can you have a "before" t=0? This reminds me strongly of THIS, which makes even my brain hurt. Sure, but like I said we can also say that "you" always existed because all the material that made you up existed before you were born. That's merely a quirk of language. It's the Ship of Theseus (kinda) in another form. I guess it might be useful to distinguish "our (local) universe" from "the universe" where the latter could include all of the stuff that existed "before" our universe and would eventually come to make up our universe... again, at least speculatively. I love when you guys talk about this 'stuff'! It always reminds me of my father's wheelbarrow. He bought a wheelbarrow when he was quite young to tend his first garden. As it ( and he) aged he replaced various parts, the wheel, the handles the bucket until at some point everything had been replaced, sometimes more than once yet he always perceived it as his original wheelbarrow. As I alluded to above, and Admin reiterated, your father's wheelbarrow is the same as the Ship of Theseus, a rather ancient philosophical thought experiment. My own view of that "problem" is that it's fine to think of it conceptually as the same thing, but not ontologically. This is a classic example of the map (mind) and territory (reality) distinction. Only way the ship (or wheelbarrow) could be ontologically the same would be if every last particle was exactly the same, and that's basically impossible. Conceptually it doesn't matter as much, as long as other people know what you mean when you say "my wheelbarrow" and whatnot.
|
|